James's Journal

There are those who might cynically suggest that Dave's "Big Society" proposals are some sort of attempt to cut public services in order to reduce our deficit. I've seen several such claims. But these people don't understand that in actual fact it's an ideological position, held by a great number of Tories and people at the Libertarian end of the Liberal spectrum.

And let's face it, there's nothing wrong with being ideologically opposed to concepts such as a economies of scale, or the notion that best practice is easier to implement across a single organisation rather than having a number of smaller groups pulling in different directions.

And it's ideologically valid to think that volunteers with very specific agendas are better placed to take decisions than experienced and objective professionals, even though it's factually wrong.

There is nothing inherently wrong with believing that electing heads of police will be better for the community, even if it does mean that anti-social behaviour will receive a disproportionate level of attention relative to less obvious issues like online paedophile rings, or anti-terrorism operations.

And as far as I can tell, the principles of freedom of thought and speech that this country holds so dear entitle one to believe that it's okay for wealthy areas to invest money on local improvements, while impoverished areas receive less money from central government and are unable to fund initiatives themselves. It would be wrong to suggest that Dave isn't allowed to think that it's for the best if the middle classes take care of themselves, and damn the working class.

I say we get off Dave's back. He's entitled to his beliefs. If I can support his right to wear a Burqa into the House of Commons (which I do, and if he did it, I would still totally think he was British), then I'm sure I can tolerate his belief that the country would be an awful lot better if he had a little less to do with the running of it.